Friday, November 09, 2012

Marriage and Marijuana

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Michael Mahoney at the Seattle Weekly probably spoke for most of the secular progressives around the state yesterday when he said, "A political earthquake shook our state on Tuesday, as a majority of Washington voters seized the opportunity to vote in favor of recreational use of marijuana, gave the thumbs-up to same-sex marriage, and re-elected a biracial president."

Mahoney said, "Don't know about you, but I plan to get thoroughly blazed at a gay wedding sometime in the not-too-distant future."

And so the party has begun.

Yesterday, Joseph Backholm, director of the Preserve Marriage Washington, conceded that this particular battle for marriage has been lost. And why.

And using marijuana is now a legal recreational sport.

I have some very candid, straightforward comments and observations about marriage and marijuana.


Yesterday Joseph Backholm, who headed up the failed effort to protect marriage in Washington state, conceded that the R-74 battle had been lost.

However, Backholm apparently had concerns about losing for a number of months. He told David Crary, with the Associated Press 8-months ago that "Nobody wants to be the first to lose, but that's a reality that people in Washington state are thinking about."

Friends of Faith and Freedom gathered upward of 80,000 signatures for R-74. I was unaware that those thoughts were being discussed. I never heard that sentiment.

Crary also reported in the same AP article that the fact that Washington State had passed the 2009 "Everything but marriage" (R-71) domestic partnership bill, would be helpful in redefining marriage in the November election. And it was.

A fact that both Larry Stickney and myself along with others had strongly argued 4 years ago.

Although Backholm and Joe Fuiten eventually got on board behind the R-71 effort after a concerted and sustained effort to undermine it, a great deal of damage had been done. And "Everything but Marriage" became law in Washington State. People who support natural marriage lost.

Had these few people not so actively worked to undermine R-71, many whom I have talked with even today feel there would have been no R-74---at least not at this time.

The "Everything but Marriage" law was the last and necessary incremental step to redefining marriage.

The effort to undermine R-71 included very personal and slanderous attacks toward Stickney, and particularly myself.

Soon after Sen. Ed Murray's law was passed by the Legislature, I requested a meeting with a number of pro-marriage lawmakers who presently serve and Larry Stickney and Steve Pidgeon. I told them we had to do something significant and pledged my full support, but to avoid a repeat of the public attacks and in what I felt would be the best interest of our shared commitment to protect marriage, I would not accept any formal role of leadership.

However, our concern and actions to create a more unified effort was soon seen to be moot.

During a meeting with most of the recognized Christian leaders in the state, it was unanimously, by voice vote, decided that the leadership did not support Joseph Backholm becoming the leader of the effort.

Meetings that followed were often marked by strong disagreements and shouting, with Fuiten or Backholm being shouted down in some cases. I stopped attending the meetings. A server at one of the hotels where one of the meetings was held wrote me a private email saying she reads my blog and was so happy she had not seen me in attendance at the meeting. She said had she not been a mature Christian, what she saw and heard could have shaken her very faith.

Several journalists with major news sources in the state, whom I've known in the past, have told me off the record some of the actions they have seen have blown them away. Thankfully they never made a big story of it. Some would have.

R-74 was ridden by strife from the beginning, with both Joe Fuiten and Joseph Backholm trying to beat one another into the Sec.of State's office to be the actual signator on the Referendum.

When Steve Pidgeon presented Initiative 1172, which I felt was a strong initiative and would have helped strengthen marriage in WA state, we pledged our full support. And gathered tens of thousands of signatures, however in the end, those who had worked to undermine R-71, also worked to undermine I-1172.

So why revisit this?

Because it speaks more to the future, than about the past. And we must address the future now, not merely out of reaction to the next secular progressive's attempt to redefine the culture.

I hold no bitterness toward anyone who said anything about us personally. I have dealt with that spiritually.

However, I deeply care about Life and Marriage and Family and Freedom and how activists are changing the landscape of the culture, and I don't think it has to be that way.

Backholm told the press yesterday that the loss is attributed to Washington state being a very liberal state, the active support by the Seattle Times, the fact that marijuana was on the ballot and because of the large amounts of money raised by the other side.

It is true, Washington is a liberal, unchurched state and the other side raised a fortune.

However, is this why we lost? If money is the issue, why is the ballot count not so different from R-71 four years ago, when we only spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, because that's all we had. And why has the R-74 leadership not spent all the money they raised for R-74 on the referendum. Is it next year's budget? Who knows.

I know that my comments here will create a firestorm of personal attacks. I'm already being attacked for not attacking the leadership of R-74 and because I supported R-74. And have been attacked by leaders with R-74. I will likely be attacked by others as well.

But can we not step back and take a look at ourselves. We are beating ourselves. I don't know a lot of things, but I know God is not the author of confusion.

This, my friends is confusion. Can we not reconcile with God and ourselves, choose new leadership and become the force for biblical values we can be? There are younger, honest, properly motivated leaders among us who feel called to lead on these issues. Can we not identify them and work with them?

I have written this from a profound spirit of concern. Please receive it in this spirit.

May God help us.

I'll get to marijuana later.


  1. "In those days Israel had no king; and everyone did as he saw fit." Judges 17:6.

    "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes - He was his own governor, and what he did he said was right; and, by his cunning and strength, defended his conduct. When a man's own will, passions, and caprice are to be made the rule of law, society is in a most perilous and ruinous state. Civil government is of God; and without it the earth must soon be desolated." Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

    So the Lord raised up gifted leaders (judges [shopetim]) of military prowess, administrative abilities, and spiritual discernment to lead their nation away from a growing disobedience and spiritual apostasy that caused a progressive moral degeneration and national collapse.

    We can't defeat psychopaths with politics or prayer alone, because their historic drug of choice is genocide. The military knows this; law enforcement knows this; King David knew this. Saddle up.

    1. So, c'mon, anyone care to comment on this? Is Ernest right? Do you all want to take up arms when you don't get your way with elections? Hmm? Anyone? Do you agree with him or is he the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe?

    2. Ernest, you have posted several times indirectly proposing violence and taking up arms. But you will not respond to queries about what you mean.

      If you have any courage at all, respond to this and be specific in what you are calling for.

      If you do not respond to this, we will all know that you are just a paper tiger with no backbone.

  2. Gary,

    It is with a heavy heart that I must concur with your observations. We allowed ourselves to be divided and let personal pride stand in the way of united solutions. Now we and our children must pay a great price.

    I agree that we need some new leadership, those who can reach across the aisle without losing the fundamentals of our Faith. It is terribly difficult to be in a position of authority and not give way to pride, but there are those that God has tested and provided this talent to.

    May God help us.


  3. Gary, I think I know where you are coming from. I have worked with you and for you in the past. I know your concern is legit and it runs deep. Thousands of people read your blog and you are the single uniting voice at this time. You have, with courage, called black black and white white. Some hate you for that, but some of us love you for it. We need a clear voice. You did not rise to defend yourself against Fuiten in the newspapers in 2009 and you removed yourself from what was refered to as "organizing meetings" during R-74. I attended some of those meetings. They were an embarrasment. It was all about posturing and who would be included and who would be excluded. Please continue to speak the truth. Many people were deceived by what transpired. Our prayers are with you.

  4. Do you know how much of the money raised for R-74 will be used for Backholm's budget next year?

  5. We are thankful God has raised you up to be an honest voice speaking up for what is right in our state government. You are a threat to the enemy and the attacks against you are spiritual. Keep up the fight and contend for the faith! And having done all to stand, stand (for righteousness).

  6. These are challenging times, and the pressure is only going to get greater. Sadly, we all know that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I appreciate you and the efforts you and Larry Stickney have made in spite of such difficulties. Jesus said the love we have for one another is how the world will know we are His disciples. Every word and action must be considered in light of this truth, and how we are representing Him as His ambassadors. May God give us wisdom and grace for the days ahead. We are certainly going to need it.

  7. I wasn't aware of all the in-fighting. It does explain why my greatest opposition to gather signatures for I-1172 was church leaders. I wasn't aware that church leaders also did little or even attacked R-71 a few years back. What's their explanation?

    1. Gary, we need a voice like yours in these last days in which we are living, where the Bible says that our culture will become where good is evil and evil is seen as good. I pray for the Lord to give you His streagth to carry on His work here on earth. We in Him appreiciate all you do.

  8. Well, I am a pastor and will not submit our property, pastoral counsel, support of these odious new laws of same sex marriage. I will continue to preach the Gospel, pray for those who are led astray by this decieving message. God is now beginning to raise up a company of prophets who will not be presented as door mats and will confront our politicians and secularists in such a way so as to show the power of God.

  9. Faith and Freedom staff4:11 PM, November 09, 2012

    God bless you Pastor Jon.

  10. No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage. …shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage…
    No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any religious organization…

    No religiously affiliated educational institution shall be required … No religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. …shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action… based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

    "Religious organization" includes, but is not limited to, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion.

    "Religious organization" as defined in this chapter must be interpreted liberally to include faith-based social service organizations involved in social services directed at the larger community.

    Breath. It can't help with concerns over the Apocalypse but as far as the more mundane worries about 'religious freedom' but now, by state statute, religious educational institutions, and service organizations are free to reject any servicing of any marriage they want - wrong races, wrong ages, wrong religion, wrong sexes, wrong whatever. They can insulate themselves from any marriage they don't like, fear no further.

    What will be the focus of Faith and Freedom now?

    1. You forgot to include private business ownners with biblical beliefs. Lawsuits anyone?

      Craig in Lacey

  11. Not the point. Sin and degradation is the point.

  12. Everything you write here about Fuiten and Backholm was known from the beginning. Yet you encouraged all of us to support these slick operators with our money. So why aren't you to blame as well?

    Also, you don't say one word about the TV ads that these individuals ran, which tried to get people to reject R74 by saying positive things about homosexuality and domestic partnerships. You supported this and enticed Christians to fund it. So say something about this!

  13. Anon. 3:18 With all due respect, you keep harping on your grievance with Gary, blaming him for standing in support of marriage and R-74. I know who you are, because I worked with you on R-71 and the signature verification. I also know you have substantial personal and family challenges. Perhaps these issues are clouding your perspective. Gary is the one person who has consistently stood for marriage without waver. He said publicly he would support R-74 and I-1192 and he did. We gathered more signatures than any other single organization. I worked with him in gathering signatures for both. He encoraged everyone to support both. He did not ever encourage people to give money to either campaign. He was quiet on that issue. Christians have been "enticed", but not by Gary. Please know that I take your attacks on him personally. I've been involved with him the past four years. You have issues V. but Gary is not your problem. Gary is the one person who is with us on these issues. To suggest that he somehow misled people because he showed respect to the campaign to preserve marriage and stood for unity within the body of Christ, and because the campaign ran some cock-eyed ad with a gay flag, reflects more on you than on anyone else. I've spoken with others who have also recognized your words, and they agree with me.

  14. God bless you Gary, for your steadfast faithfulness in speaking truth to a deceived culture. Godspeed.

    Craig in Lacey


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.